CourtListener 10680146

Full text

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
official text of the opinion.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: March 7, 2023

S23Y0451. IN THE MATTER OF DANA NICOLE JACKSON.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and

recommendation of Special Master Samuel Jeffrey Rusbridge who

recommends that the Court disbar Dana Nicole Jackson (State Bar

No. 781227), a member of the Bar since 2010, for her misconduct

related to her representation of clients in a consumer debt collection

matter. The State Bar filed a formal complaint in 2021, alleging that

Jackson had violated Rules 1.4 and 1.15 (I) (c) of the Georgia Rules

of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The State Bar’s

investigator attempted personal service at Jackson’s address on file

with the State Bar’s Membership Department, but issued a return
of service non est inventus1 because the address was located at a

UPS store. The State Bar then properly served Jackson by

publication pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii). Jackson failed

to file a Notice of Rejection or otherwise respond to the formal

complaint. The State Bar filed a motion for default, which the

Special Master granted, concluding that by virtue of her failure to

respond, Jackson had admitted the facts alleged and violations

charged in the formal complaint. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b). The

Special Master issued his report and recommendation after holding

a hearing on aggravating and mitigating factors.

The Special Master found the following facts to be undisputed

by virtue of Jackson’s default. In April 2018, Jackson was hired by

an attorney and her client, to collect a debt owed to the client in

exchange for a 25% fee on all funds collected. On March 14, 2019,

Jackson obtained a judgment for the client for $3,821 in principal

1 “The Latin term, sometimes shortened to ‘non est’ or abbreviated as
‘n.e.i.,’ means ‘he is not found,’ and is used to indicate that the person in
question could not be found within the jurisdiction.” In the Matter of Arrington,
314 Ga. 696, 697 n.3 (8778 SE2d 534) (2022) (citing “Non est inventus,” Black’s
Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)).

2
and $162 in court costs. Jackson collected at least $3,750 from the

debtors but failed to send any of the money to the clients. She also

refused to communicate with the clients about the case, though they

sent several requests for status updates.

After concluding that Jackson was subject to this Court’s

disciplinary jurisdiction, the Special Master considered Jackson’s

conduct in relation to the Rules she allegedly violated. As to Rule

1.4, the Special Master determined that subsection (a) requires a

lawyer to reasonably consult with the client about the means by

which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; keep the client

reasonably informed about the status of a matter; and promptly

comply with reasonable requests for information, and that

subsection (b) requires a lawyer to consult with the client to the

extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed

decisions regarding the representation. The Special Master

concluded that Jackson violated Rules 1.4 (a) and (b) by completely

failing to discuss the representation with her clients. The Special

Master determined that Jackson violated Rule 1.15 (I) (c) (requiring

3
a lawyer, upon receiving client funds, to “promptly notify the client

or third person” and deliver the funds that the client or third person

is entitled to receive) by failing to notify the clients of her receipt of

funds from the debtors and failing to deliver the funds to the clients.

The maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.4 is a public

reprimand, and the maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.15 (I)

The Special Master observed that “the primary purpose of a

disciplinary action is to protect the public from attorneys who are

not qualified to practice law due to incompetence or unprofessional

conduct,” In the Matter of Blitch, 288 Ga. 690, 692 (706 SE2d 461)

(2011), and that this Court is also concerned with the public’s

confidence in the profession. The Special Master then considered the

ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA Standards”)

for guidance in determining the appropriate sanction, see In the

Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653 (470 SE2d 232) (1996), which

require (1) identification of the ethical duty violated by the lawyer;

(2) identification of the lawyer’s mental state; (3) the potential or

4
actual injury caused; and (4) examination of aggravating and

mitigating circumstances. The Special Master concluded that

Jackson violated her duties to communicate with her clients and to

preserve and keep her clients’ property safe, see ABA Standard 4.0;

and she acted knowingly and intentionally by refusing to

communicate with her clients and by admitting by default that she

stole her clients’ money, see ABA Standard 3.0. The Special Master

further concluded that ABA Standard 4.62 (“Suspension is generally

appropriate when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client, and causes

injury or potential injury to the client.”) was applicable due to her

complete failure to communicate with her clients, which showed

deceit rather than mere negligence; and that ABA Standard 4.11

(“Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly

converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a

client.”) was applicable to her violation of Rule 1.15 (I) (c). Thus, the

Special Master concluded that disbarment was the presumptive

sanction under the ABA Standards, as Jackson knowingly converted

her clients’ property.

5
Next, the Special Master considered aggravating factors,

concluding that Jackson had a dishonest or selfish motive, see ABA

Standard 9.22 (b); that she refused to acknowledge the wrongful

nature of her conduct, see ABA Standard 9.22 (g); and that she was

indifferent to making restitution, see ABA Standard 9.22 (j). In

contrast, the Special Master concluded that only one mitigating

factor applied in that Jackson had no prior disciplinary record, see

ABA Standard 9.32 (a).

The Special Master considered this Court’s prior disciplinary

decisions, noting that, in the absence of remorse and restitution, the

Court normally disbars attorneys who misappropriate client funds

without explanation. See In the Matter of Harris, 301 Ga. 378, 379-

380 (801 SE2d 39) (2017) (disbarring attorney for violations of Rules

1.15 (I) and 1.15 (II) despite lack of prior disciplinary history when

attorney was in default and offered no mitigating circumstances

relating to his conduct); In the Matter of Rose, 299 Ga. 665, 666 (791

SE2d 1) (2016) (same); In the Matter of Jones, 296 Ga. 151, 151 (765

SE2d 360) (2014) (same). Because Jackson misappropriated client

6
funds, offered no restitution, expressed no remorse, and provided no

explanation, the Special Master concluded that disbarment was an

appropriate sanction for her violations of Rules 1.4 and 1.15 (I) (c).

Therefore, he recommended that Jackson be disbarred for her

violations of those Rules.

Neither Jackson nor the State Bar has filed exceptions to the

Special Master’s report and recommendation. Having reviewed the

record, we agree that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this

matter, particularly in light of the fact that Jackson admitted to the

Rules violations by virtue of her default and offered no mitigating

explanation for her behavior. Accordingly, it is ordered that the

name of Dana Nicole Jackson be removed from the rolls of persons

authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Jackson is

reminded of her duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).

Disbarred. All the Justices concur.

315 Ga. 837
FINAL COPY

S23Y0451. IN THE MATTER OF DANA NICOLE JACKSON.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and

recommendation of Special Master Samuel Jeffrey Rusbridge, who

recommends that the Court disbar Dana Nicole Jackson (State Bar

No. 781227), a member of the Bar since 2010, for her misconduct

related to her representation of clients in a consumer debt collection

matter. The State Bar filed a formal complaint in 2021, alleging that

Jackson had violated Rules 1.4 and 1.15 (I) (c) of the Georgia Rules

of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The State Bar’s

investigator attempted personal service at Jackson’s address on file

with the State Bar’s Membership Department, but issued a return

of service non est inventus1 because the address was located at a

1 “The Latin term, sometimes shortened to ‘non est’ or abbreviated as

‘n.e.i.,’ means ‘he is not found,’ and is used to indicate that the person in
question could not be found within the jurisdiction.” In the Matter of Arrington,
UPS store. The State Bar then properly served Jackson by

publication pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii). Jackson failed

to file a Notice of Rejection or otherwise respond to the formal

complaint. The State Bar filed a motion for default, which the

Special Master granted, concluding that by virtue of her failure to

respond, Jackson had admitted the facts alleged and violations

charged in the formal complaint. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b). The

Special Master issued his report and recommendation after holding

a hearing on aggravating and mitigating factors.

The Special Master found the following facts to be undisputed

by virtue of Jackson’s default. In April 2018, Jackson was hired by

an attorney and her client to collect a debt owed to the client in

exchange for a 25 percent fee on all funds collected. On March 14,

2019, Jackson obtained a judgment for the client for $3,821 in

principal and $162 in court costs. Jackson collected at least $3,750

from the debtors but failed to send any of the money to the clients.

314 Ga. 696, 697 n.3 (878 SE2d 534) (2022) (citing “Non est inventus,” Black’s
Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)).

2
She also refused to communicate with the clients about the case,

though they sent several requests for status updates.

After concluding that Jackson was subject to this Court’s

disciplinary jurisdiction, the Special Master considered Jackson’s

conduct in relation to the Rules she allegedly violated. As to Rule

1.4, the Special Master determined that subsection (a) requires a

lawyer to reasonably consult with the client about the means by

which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; keep the client

reasonably informed about the status of a matter; and promptly

comply with reasonable requests for information, and that

subsection (b) requires a lawyer to consult with the client to the

extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed

decisions regarding the representation. The Special Master

concluded that Jackson violated Rules 1.4 (a) and (b) by completely

failing to discuss the representation with her clients. The Special

Master determined that Jackson violated Rule 1.15 (I) (c) (requiring

a lawyer, upon receiving client funds, to “promptly notify the client

or third person” and deliver the funds that the client or third person

3
is entitled to receive) by failing to notify the clients of her receipt of

funds from the debtors and failing to deliver the funds to the clients.

The maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.4 is a public

reprimand, and the maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.15 (I)

The Special Master observed that “the primary purpose of a

disciplinary action is to protect the public from attorneys who are

not qualified to practice law due to incompetence or unprofessional

conduct,” In the Matter of Blitch, 288 Ga. 690, 692 (706 SE2d 461)

(2011) (citation and punctuation omitted), and that this Court is also

concerned with the public’s confidence in the profession. The Special

Master then considered the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer

Sanctions (“ABA Standards”) for guidance in determining the

appropriate sanction, see In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652, 653

(470 SE2d 232) (1996), which require (1) identification of the ethical

duty violated by the lawyer; (2) identification of the lawyer’s mental

state; (3) the potential or actual injury caused; and (4) examination

of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Special Master

4
concluded that Jackson violated her duties to communicate with her

clients and to preserve and keep her clients’ property safe, see ABA

Standard 4.1; and she acted knowingly and intentionally by refusing

to communicate with her clients and by admitting by default that

she stole her clients’ money, see ABA Standard 3.0. The Special

Master further concluded that ABA Standard 4.62 (“Suspension is

generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client,

and causes injury or potential injury to the client.”) was applicable

due to her complete failure to communicate with her clients, which

showed deceit rather than mere negligence; and that ABA Standard

4.11 (“Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer

knowingly converts client property and causes injury or potential

injury to a client.”) was applicable to her violation of Rule 1.15 (I)

(c). Thus, the Special Master concluded that disbarment was the

presumptive sanction under the ABA Standards, as Jackson

knowingly converted her clients’ property.

Next, the Special Master considered aggravating factors,

concluding that Jackson had a dishonest or selfish motive, see ABA

5
Standard 9.22 (b); that she refused to acknowledge the wrongful